[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal (Global): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries - Revised

Martin Hannigan martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs
Wed Mar 18 15:33:03 EDT 2009

Hi Dave,

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:06 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> On 11 Mar 2009 Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:08 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> [ clip ]
> > > There are several issues I think we should give them feedback on:
> > >
> > > 1.  RIR assigned vs. Legacy Blocks -  It might be be helpful to
> > > differentiate between Legacy assignments and RIR assigned /8s.  Like
> > > making return of RIR assigned block optional, and Legacy assigned
> > > block mandatory.
> >
> > Differentiating creates classes. We see that differientation and the
> > resulting difficulties with creating reasonable, modernized, transfer
> > policy. When you create a class, you almost always end up with an
> > inequity that is uneven and painful. Citizenship vs. non-citizenship,
> > for example.
> I think I agree with you on this one, but this is one change that has been
> talked about.

Technically, this is a transfer policy since it allows the transfer of
resources that are currently legitimately registered within the region to be
taken out of the region. The regional transfer policies are very different.
There lies a large inequity of this policy.

[ clip ]

> If you assume that we will never recover much address space then there will
> probably never be enough address space to meet the needs of even one of
> the RIRs.  But it could still be possible for the criteria in the proposed
> B.3 to
> be meet, but that the RIR in questions has more address space than it
> needs.  In no situation should an RIR be able receive address that it can't
> justify need, especially if other RIRs can justify need.

I don't disagree that space that is classified as excess, through a regional
policy that is modifiable both rapidly and in response to real experience
and regional requirements, should be allocated where there is need. This is
not the mechanism that would accomplish that, fairly and/or evenly.

There is also no fix, that I am currently aware of, that would accomodate a
fair redistribution of returned or recovered IPv4 adddress space that is
based on the needs of all regions.  There also isn't a policy fix that would
address all of the pitfalls that would prove unfair to our community. Such
as monetizing. The only way that I can think of to insure that unfair
conditions are not created is to have a global transfer policy that mutually
assures that the system will not be monetized or unfair. That will prove
impossible to do on a global, or globally coordinated, basis since the needs
are so varied.

[ clip ]

> Otherwise, there would need to be some kind of mechanism for the RIRs to
> share these recovery expenses globally.  And I believe having the RIRs
> exchange money will create all kinds of nasty issues, that I don't even
> want
> to think about.
> What do you think?

I think that this would create a potential gaming scenario. An entity could
determine which region was up next in the queue and provide an incentive in
the another region that gets space returned and subsequently passed to the
IANA, fulfilled as stated in the policy, and then allocated to a party that
could then turn around and transfer that resource in the same region. The
potential for abuse seems huge.

This policy indirectly, but effectively, creates a global transfer policy
based on the most lax policy in the system, IMHO.

> > The best way to demonstrate the disparity may be to simply look at the
> > current utilization statistics[2] provided by the NRO. Fast forward
> > this to the 2010 prediction and imagine that as the size of the
> > "backed up" requests. This demonstrates to me that this policy would
> > not be favorable for any RIR region, IMHO, which is why it may have
> > been proposed.
> I agree there are global inequities, but creating an inequity between each
> RIRs local and global responsibilities will not fix that.  If fact it could
> make it
> worse.

This policy creates a rather severe imbalance in fairness based on the
points I made related to that statistical compilation from the NRO and the
differing volume of needs amongst the RIR operations. One region would have
a majority of it's needs met while our region would have small fractions of
our needs met under this policy. It's really that simple. Even if small
amounts of space were to be recovered and transferred to the IANA, some
regions would be able to continue in an almost business as usual fashion.

Best Regards,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090318/8face0af/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list